BROTM On U.S. Free Speech Fetish

[WI-Tom]

I guess I better start a thread again, lest my reign be remembered as a period of unambitious non-achievement (though why my reign here as BROTM should be different than the rest of my life might be somewhat of an open question).

So, a thread on the U.S. free speech fetish.

Fetish, which Oxford Languages describes this way:

an excessive and irrationaldevotion or commitment to a particular thing.

But but but... !!!! Isn't unfettered free speech the absolute bedrock principle of democratic governance?!?!? Who is this BROTM guy to slap a negative label on our commitment to, like, FREEDOM and stuff?!?!?

What can be more AMERICAN than this:

I hate what you say, and disagree with you completely, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!

That, in a nutshell, is the kind of free speech fetish I'm talking about.

And will talk about more, as my reign winds down toward the obscurity it so richly deserves.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

So, a few thoughts to begin. To prove I have "researched" this thoroughly as the Bilge has mandated, let's start with a C&P from Wikipedia:

A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.^[25] In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expands on the UDHR, stating that restrictions on freedom of expression would be permitted when it threatens national security, incites racial or religious hatred, causes individual harm on health or morals, or threatens the rights and reputations of individuals.^[26]

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.^[9]

Hmm... American exceptionalism rides again! (And again. And again. And again...)

Isn't it interesting that, virtually alone in developed nations, the U.S. has prevented any restrictions on hate speech--while other nations have gone the opposite route.

Let's look at that long list of fascist nations who are so hostile to freedom:

Australia.
Denmark.
France.
India.
South Africa.
Sweden.
New Zealand.
The United Kingdom.

Hmm...

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Discuss.

Tom

[Osborne Russell]

But but but... !!!! Isn't unfettered free speech the absolute bedrock principle of democratic governance?!?!?

No. It's republican.

Who is this BROTM guy to slap a negative label on our commitment to, like, FREEDOM and stuff?!?!?

A woke CRT'er, funamentally hostile to the Enlightenment. Label-slapping is your thing.

What can be more AMERICAN than this:

I hate what you say, and disagree with you completely, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!

French.

[Osborne Russell]

Hmm... American exceptionalism rides again! (And again. And again. And again...)

Nothing to do with American exceptionalism, or any kind of exceptionalism. As to a given human right, there may be and there are opposing positions on its extent, and at the same time there can be and is indivisible agreement on the existence of the right. Because it's a human right, which means it cannot be a mere national right.

Why not make the woke argument that freedom of speech is merely another aspect of institutional white supremacy? Do some research and come up with some evidence that it negatively impacts persons of color disproportionately. That's all it takes. Some riot or other that was violently put down. Jedgar vs. MLK.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

And onee again, we have the question about the existence of an imaginary thing.....

4 pages?

[JimD]

Too bad honesty in politics, government, and journalism weren't enshrined in our constitutions. It would make quibbling over freedom of speech a lot less problematic.

[Too Little Time]

...

I always thought and still think that "free speech" was intended to be limited to speech critical of the government. The courts were wrong in extending it.

[WI-Tom]

A woke CRT'er.

funamentally [sic] hostile to the Enlightenment.

Label-slapping is your thing.

Pegging the irony meter there, aren't you?

Tom

[Jim Bow]

I’m going to research freedom of speech in Finland, the happiest country on earth. Be right back.

[Jim Bow]

Finnish Constitution:

Section 10

(17 July 1995/969)
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression shall include the right to impart, publish and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior hindrance from anyone. More precise provisions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression shall be prescribed by Act of Parliament. Restrictions on pictorial programmes necessary for the protection of children may be prescribed by Act of Parliament.
The documents and other records in the possession of public authorities shall be public unless their publicity has been separately restricted by Act of Parliament for compelling reasons. Everyone shall have the right to obtain information from public documents and records.

[Osborne Russell]

And onee again, we have the question about the existence of an imaginary thing.....

4 pages?

Imaginary like Wales. Like all law. You could go there and and put it to them; people would get fired up about it. They put up signs, invent titles, print letterhead, Wales this, Wales that. How much of that bull S are we expected to endure for the existence of an imaginary thing?

[WI-Tom]

Finnish Constitution:

Section 10

(17 July 1995/969)
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression shall include the right to impart, publish and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior hindrance from anyone. More precise provisions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression shall be prescribed by Act of Parliament. Restrictions on pictorial programmes necessary for the protection of children may be prescribed by Act of Parliament.
The documents and other records in the possession of public authorities shall be public unless their publicity has been separately restricted by Act of Parliament for compelling reasons. Everyone shall have the right to obtain information from public documents and records.

But a closer look reveals this:

...Finnish legislation and different kinds of international treaties limit the use of the freedom of speech so that it does not allow violations of the basic rights or human dignity of other people.

The Criminal Code of Finland limits the freedom of speech by stating that acts like defamation and ethnic agitation are punishable offences. Therefore, if these crimes are motivated by hate, they can also be hate crimes. Combating and investigating crimes like these is the duty of the police.

So, not quite the same fetishization that the U.S. shows toward free speech. Rather, freedom limited by the recognition that some forms of speech are harmful to the fabric of society, and antithetical to democratic governance. And so, not all speech is protectable as "free" in Finland, and many other nations.

Even the U.S. kind of recognizes the harm speech can do, with it's "Fire!" in a crowded theater exception. What the U.S. hasn't recognized yet is:

1. Hate speech is harmful, just as causing stampedes in public spaces is harmful. Perhaps even more harmful.

2. Some forms of speech are actually a threat to democratic governance and the rule of law--so, how "free" should we allow it to be?

Tom

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Imaginary like Wales. L

No, imaginary as in all things with no physical reality - rights being a spectacular example.

[Garret]

As has been said on the WBF before (I'm paraphrasing), we'll have sparkly pink unicorns before we amend the constitution. That phrase may tell you who said it...

Anyway - the important thing is that the 1st does NOT protect you from the consequences of what you say. What we really need is a law specifying consequences for lying for political gain - IOW the political version of fraud.

[Peerie Maa]

So, a few thoughts to begin. To prove I have "researched" this thoroughly as the Bilge has mandated, let's start with a C&P from Wikipedia:



Hmm... American exceptionalism rides again! (And again. And again. And again...)

Isn't it interesting that, virtually alone in developed nations, the U.S. has prevented any restrictions on hate speech--while other nations have gone the opposite route.


Tom

Well there is your first mistake right there. When you look at the $#!ehole states run by the GOP can the US claim to be a developed nation?
Seriously?

It can be argued that your SCOTUS prevents the US of A from developing.

[Peerie Maa]

Nothing to do with American exceptionalism, or any kind of exceptionalism. As to a given human right, there may be and there are opposing positions on its extent, and at the same time there can be and is indivisible agreement on the existence of the right. Because it's a human right, which means it cannot be a mere national right.

Why not make the woke argument that freedom of speech is merely another aspect of institutional white supremacy? Do some research and come up with some evidence that it negatively impacts persons of color disproportionately. That's all it takes. Some riot or other that was violently put down. Jedgar vs. MLK.

It is a human right to not be harmed by another human.
Preventing hate speech does not do much harm to the perpetrator, but hate speech can do considerable harm to the victim.
You will be defending the right to shout "Fire" in a theatre next.

[Mrleft88]

Freedom of speech, or if you like, the freedom to speak w/o restriction is a public right. Private entities may, if they wish circumvent this public right by imposing rules whether written, or by fiat on the moment.
So while you have the absolute right to swear, and shout vulgarities on a public square, in the house of (Let's just call him Able), your speech may be subject to rules unwritten, as you speak them, Able may decide what the others in the room may hear, or not.
As BROTM, you have a certain responsibility to clarify "Able's rules on speech"..... At least until Saturday.

[Peerie Maa]

Freedom of speech, or if you like, the freedom to speak w/o restriction is a public right. Private entities may, if they wish circumvent this public right by imposing rules whether written, or by fiat on the moment.
So while you have the absolute right to swear, and shout vulgarities on a public square, in the house of (Let's just call him Able), your speech may be subject to rules unwritten, as you speak them, Able may decide what the others in the room may hear, or not.
As BROTM, you have a certain responsibility to clarify "Able's rules on speech"..... At least until Saturday.

How public is public? Or rather, what is not public?

Do you have any right to use social media to broadcast material intended to influence the vulnerable and persuade them to harm themselves?

[WI-Tom]

Freedom of speech, or if you like, the freedom to speak w/o restriction is a public right.

There is no public right to speak w/o restriction, even in the U.S. Speech can be limited by government in certain cases.

But let's assume for a moment that you are largely correct, and public speech cannot be limited by government in most cases. Is that necessarily a good thing? What about public speech that incites violence? Public speech that harms others by promoting racist or mysognist or anti-LGBTQ+ or anti-immigrant beliefs? Public speech that advocates the violent overthrow of democracy?

Why should speech that directly and indirectly harms others--people who presumably have the right to the full protections and freedoms of law--be permitted? Why should speech that threatens democratic governance and promotes authoritarian or fascist ideology be permitted?

Who benefits? And who pays the costs?

Many Western nations have laws restricting speech and/or criminalizing hate speech. But not the U.S. Is that a good thing? If so, why?

As for this:

As BROTM, you have a certain responsibility to clarify "Able's rules on speech"..... At least until Saturday.

I have no idea what "Able's rules on speech" refers to. So I guess, in this respect, my tenure as BROTM has been (fatally?) flawed.

TOm

[Dan McCosh]

There is a long-standing exception to so-called "free speech" in the U.S. constitution. Called "fighting words," it allows laws prohibiting using language that promotes retaliatory violence. The US Supreme Court has upheld it, but a series of rulings have progressively narrowed the application of the doctrine. Regardless, it puts the US in much the same position of many other countries regarding the legality of "free speech".

[John Smith]

So, a few thoughts to begin. To prove I have "researched" this thoroughly as the Bilge has mandated, let's start with a C&P from Wikipedia:



Hmm... American exceptionalism rides again! (And again. And again. And again...)

Isn't it interesting that, virtually alone in developed nations, the U.S. has prevented any restrictions on hate speech--while other nations have gone the opposite route.

Let's look at that long list of fascist nations who are so hostile to freedom:

Australia.
Denmark.
France.
India.
South Africa.
Sweden.
New Zealand.
The United Kingdom.

Hmm...

Tom

We have laws that restrict free speech: Inciting violence, fraud, libel, and slander are not free speech, although you'd never guess.

[bluedog225]

Ha ha! A foundation of our system of government is a fetish. Derp.

[Osborne Russell]

Ha ha! A foundation of our system of government is a fetish. Derp.

Obama raised false hope, so we have no choice.

The new left view that racism, sexism and other oppressive hierarchies are deeply embedded in American society all but ensures a pessimistic view of America. This is quite different from Obama-era liberalism. Indeed, Mr. Obama himself was cast as a redeeming figure whose ascent proved American greatness.

When in conflict, the new left prioritizes the pursuit of a more equitable society over enlightenment-era liberal values. Many of the academic theories, including critical race theory, critique liberalism as an obstacle to progressive change.

In this view, equal rights are a veneer that conceal and justify structural inequality, while some liberal beliefs impede efforts to challenge oppression. The liberal value of equal treatment prevents identity-conscious remedies to injustice; the liberal goal of equal opportunity accepts unequal outcomes; even freedom of speech allows voices that would offend and thus could exclude marginalized communities.

Is this a definition of woke? No. But it covers much of what woke is grasping toward: a word to describe a new brand of righteous, identity-conscious, new left activists eager to tackle oppression, including in everyday life and even at the expense of some liberal values.

-- emphasis added


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/u...n=The%20Upshot

Woke doesn't have a definition but it's grasping toward one. Isn't that enough? To say stupid S like "Defund the police" along the way, while they're grasping? Can't you be patient even as Reds are taking over? Darned liberal fetishes.

[Osborne Russell]

Pegging the irony meter there, aren't you?

Tom

You say you are "skeptical" of free speech. Since human rights all have the same source, you are skeptical of their foundation, and so, undeniably, of all of them at once. You get that from CRT. That's not a label, it's a statement based on evidence and reasoning. Of which you are skeptical, granted.

Your position is that free speech is a "fetish". That is a mere label you put on the principle upon which your country is founded, to which you once gave your oath to kill and die for. With your label, you would reduce the entire subject to a matter of abnormal psychology. That is a sweeping, portentous claim, which you cannot support with evidence -- but it is not to be expected that you would even try, having decided to be a woke CRT'er who rejects the obligations of reason from the get go. Your position is a profound moral judgment born of an ideology. That goes well beyond skepticism. Skepticism is an approach to the evidence. CRT is a conclusion from the evidence, an affirmative, positive statement of a moral judgment, not based upon evidence and reason, based upon . . . what?

Once the judgment is made, you're done with skepticism. Your job becomes combating the skepticism of others. The Marx-Stalin-Mao continuum. Remember it when you attempt to seek refuge in skepticism, i.e. "I'm just saying . . . " No you're not, you're advocating change by force. A new regime, established and maintained by force . . . the moral commitment to reason having been abandoned.

Prove me wrong by illustrating some non-CRT basis for your position. Or refuse the effort,on principle. I know there's a principle in there somewhere -- wh can't you stand up and say it? And if this is it, say it. SGo on insisting that evidence and reason and free speech and human rights are to be jettisoned on moral grounds. 2+3=10 if justice requires. That is an appeal to the rightness of the victory of pure force over reason. If you win, your victory lasts no longer than how long it takes for someone to somehow muster superior force. And -- hear me, I beg you, ask your Polish neighbors what what the Soviet mother fers will do -- the Soviets will not give two S about your pleas for justice, based as they are on the western "fetish" of human rights.

Your position takes homo sapiens backward in its moral and philosophical evolution. Nothing could be more conservative. Return to tribes with clubs, and the associated woofing. It's right! Justice!

[Osborne Russell]

It is a human right to not be harmed by another human.

So general as to be useless. If there is such a right, it is utterly subsumed by society's right to define harm and the remedy for it. A guy says "Merry Christmas" and you are "harmed"? We deny it.

Preventing hate speech does not do much harm to the perpetrator, but hate speech can do considerable harm to the victim.

Depends who's defining the harm, and imposing the remedy for it. Putin says his hate speech laws don't do much harm to the people he sent to Siberia? Says who? Putin.

[Osborne Russell]

No, imaginary as in all things with no physical reality - rights being a spectacular example.

What physical reality does Wales have that free speech doesn't?

[bluedog225]

The supremes. Recently. [edit-snyder 2011]

“[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138, 145. Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when it “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,” San Diego v. Roe, 543 U. S. 77, 83–84. A statement’s arguably “inappropriate or controversial character … is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 387. Pp. 5–7.

[Jim Mahan]

Imaginary and intangible are not the same. Most of what is arguably most important in life is intangible but very real, as in not imaginary. I have a friend who is dear enough I would risk my own safety for his. That friendship is real, but you can't touch it. A toddler's imaginary friend isn't tangible, and not real, though the emotional bond is real while still intangible and not imaginary.

[WI-Tom]

You say you are "skeptical" of free speech.

Nope. I didn't say that. Not anywhere. Not anywhen. Nor have I derived any of my ideas on this from "CRT". Do you read anything I write before you reply? Do you understand anything I write?

What I said is that the way the U.S. approaches the issue--in contrast to most other Western nations--is a fetish, as defined by Oxford:

an excessive and irrational devotion or commitment to a particular thing.

What I'm mostly putting forth for discussion is the idea that hate speech ought to be regulated--and in many countries it is regulated--in recognition that the harm it causes far outweighs any benefits it might provide.

Often, the response to any such suggestion is an argument about a "slippery slope" where if we don't someone use racist, misogynist, anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric today, then tomorrow we won't be allowed to say anything government might find it inconvenient for its citizens to be saying.

Well, that's complete nonsense. Regulation is possible--the criminalization of hate speech is possible--without harming the fundamental right of free speech. As some have pointed out on this thread, the U.S. already allows certain restrictions.

I believe it is irrational or excessive to give free speech protections to speech that:

1. Harms those individuals it is aimed at, by sending a clear message that hate speech (and perhaps physical violence eventually) aimed at them is OK; that our government protects the right to say to a group based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. "You are not one of us. You do not enjoy full citizenship in our democracy. We can attack you verbally, and society is OK with us doing that. Don't get comfortable here. You don't belong.
2. Harms the fundamental principles of democratic governance, which is that each citizen is a full member with the right to be an active member of our society, with full rights and protections, and a reasonable expectation that they will not be the target of hate crimes.

A government that tolerates free speech even when that speech is a threat to the principles on which that government is founded is acting, well...

Irrationally. As if they had an excessive irrational devotion to something.

OR, I have to say, you don't seem capable of understanding anything I post. You disregard what I actually write, and leap to inserting your own preconceived conclusions to rant against.

I said this is a fetishization of free speech. It is. It's also the fetishization of the simplistic adolescent idea of the complete freedom of the rugged individualist, resulting in hostility to collective actions that other nations seem to find quite sensible, and a complete inability to understand how interdependent we all are. So-called "Stand Your Ground" laws are another manifestation of this kind of fetish. Basically it seems to boil down to "You're not the boss of me!", with all the childish selfishness such a statement implies.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

Osborne, Tom may be right or he may be wrong, but you're the last person I would have expected to bring up the "CRT' boogeyman. Really??

[Peerie Maa]

So general as to be useless. If there is such a right, it is utterly subsumed by society's right to define harm and the remedy for it. A guy says "Merry Christmas" and you are "harmed"? We deny it.

Do you deny that there is such a right?
Seriously?
You should look at the criminal codes of every literate nation through time. You might learn some common sense.

Depends who's defining the harm, and imposing the remedy for it.

Pretty well every European nation, for starters. Are we all wrong?

There is an irony emoticon you know, you should use it occasionally, it would make you look less of a pillock. 🙃

[Osborne Russell]

Nope. I didn't say that. Not anywhere. Not anywhen. Nor have I derived any of my ideas on this from "CRT".

The idea of a "U.S. Free Speech Fetish" just appeared?

[Osborne Russell]

Do you deny that there is such a right?
Seriously?
You should look at the criminal codes of every literate nation through time. You might learn some common sense.
Pretty well every European nation, for starters. Are we all wrong?

There is an irony emoticon you know, you should use it occasionally, it would make you look less of a pillock. ��

You force me to repeat myself, pillock.

So general as to be useless. If there is such a right, it is utterly subsumed by society's right to define harm and the remedy for it. A guy says "Merry Christmas" and you are "harmed"? We deny it.

The neighbor lady has a very learned, refined aesthetic sense. The way I prune my tree offends this sense, it harms her. Meanwhile she has her giant poodle cut like a topiary, a series of spheres. It harms me, man. I think of what she's doing to that poor animal and it makes me want to barf.

We go to court. What does the court say? The court says, GTFOOH. What became of our right not to be harmed?

[Osborne Russell]

Osborne, Tom may be right or he may be wrong, but you're the last person I would have expected to bring up the "CRT' boogeyman. Really??

Keith, Keith. You're the last person I would have expected to accuse me of "bringing up the 'CRT' boogeyman."

The right's CRT boogeyman is their construction; any connection to reality is coincidental.

I didn't invent the role of CRT in the hate speech debate. Hate speech was an early focus of scholarship and advocacy of CRT. At this point, it would seem superfluous for me to say, don't take my word for it. It's easy enough to investigate. Check out Richard Delgado and Mari Matsuda. Ms. Matsuda makes the best case for it that I've seen so far.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992), which seemingly closed the door on hate speech regulation, Delgado continued to publish extensively on the legality and necessity of hate speech regulation. Relying heavily on social scientific data, Delgado outlined the harm caused by racist speech and developed a tort action for racial insults that he believes could pass First Amendment scrutiny.

Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawrence are two more early CRT proponents of hate speech regulation. Matsuda suggested the creation of a legal doctrine to limit hate speech in cases where the message is one of racial inferiority, the message is directed against a historically oppressed group, and the message is persecutorial, hateful, and degrading.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...al-race-theory

Tom says he doesn't know this. He must have learned it somewhere else.